Biblical Christology: Which Way does the Evidence Point?
In previous weeks I have shown that my arguments are strongly supported by standard authorities and a broad range of recent Trinitarian scholarship. This week I will be summarising the key elements of the Biblical Unitarian position, identifying key weaknesses in the Trinitarian position, and weighing the evidence against three primary criteria: reason, Scripture and history.
I maintain that Biblical Unitarianism:
- Is the original, first-century Christology
- Enjoys greater compatibility with the Biblical evidence
- Allows a more natural reading of the text
- Eliminates alleged “paradoxes” and “contradictions”
- Maintains the essential connection between the OT, Second Temple Judaism, and first-century Christianity
- Preserves the cultural and ideological context of original Christian beliefs
- Is logically and rationally superior to Trinitarianism
- Commands the earliest historical support
- Offers a coherent high Christology, grounded in OT typology and comprising a consistent doctrinal arc stretching from Genesis to Revelation
- Provides the basis for a deeper, more meaningful relationship with God and Christ
The Argument from Reason
Trinitarianism is contrary to logic and reason. For example, the Athanasian Creed states:
So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords.
This presents us with three “divine persons” who are collectively and individually called “God” and “Lord.” God + God + God = three entities in the category of “God”, yet the Athanasian Creed forbids Christians to say “three Gods.” Lord + Lord + Lord = three entities in the category of “Lord”, yet the Athanasian Creed forbids Christians to say “three Lords.” Even if we allow the Trinitarian explanation that the three who are called “God” are not individual gods but individual persons who comprise one God, this still leaves us with three Lords within the Godhead. The Creed permits us to acknowledge these three Lords individually as “Lord”, provided we do not refer to them as “three Lords”! Thus the Creed demands an illogical confession by insisting we confess three Lords as one Lord.
This is just one example of the way Trinitarianism requires unique definitions of words, contrary to regular usage. For example, Rob insists that within the context of Trinitarianism, the term “person” is “…stipulated to be used with a somewhat different connotation as compared to its use for human beings.” But why use the term “person” in a way which differs from its use for human beings in the first place? The OT offers no basis for the Trinitarian view of personhood, so how is the idea deduced from Scripture? Where is the Biblical evidence which demonstrates this is how we are intended to use the word “person” in reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
The answer: there is no such evidence. The uniquely Trinitarian definition and usage of the word “person” arose as a fourth-Century solution to the logical and rational problems presented by the triune formula. Even in common English versions we can see Scripture does not use the words “being” and “person” in the way required by Trinitarianism. This is a major impediment to Rob’s theology.
Since the Trinitarian Jesus is believed to be God, everything in Scripture which applies to God must necessarily apply to him. But this results in many contradictions:
- Visible despite being invisible (Colossian 1:15)
- Seen but “never seen” (John 1:18, I Timothy 6:16)
- Tempted even though God cannot be tempted (Matthew 4:1-11; cp. James 1:13)
- “Made like his brothers and sisters in every respect” (Hebrews 2:17), yet not really made like them at all, since he is God and does not possess “fallen nature”
- “Died” on the cross despite being eternal (I Timothy 1:17)
- “Raised from the dead” (Matthew 28:7) and “released from the pains of death” by the Father (Acts 2:24), though he never truly died
- Omnipotent yet dependent upon the Father’s power for his miraculous works (John 14:10)
- Omniscient yet lacking knowledge (Matthew 24:36)
- Simultaneously “God” and “not-God”
These are just some of the logical problems resulting from Trinitarian Christology. Rob calls them “paradoxes” as if this somehow makes them acceptable. A paradox can be acceptable, if its contradiction is only apparent. Yet the contradictions within Trinitarianism are not merely apparent; they are real and insoluble.
For example, Rob believes Jesus could be tempted, yet was incapable of sin (Putting Jesus In His Place, p.122). But there can be no temptation without the possibility of sin. To deny Jesus could sin is to deny he could be tempted, so the statement “Jesus could be tempted but was not capable of sin” is both self-refuting and utterly meaningless. If Jesus cannot be tempted, then Hebrews 2:18 and 4:15 are both false. If Jesus was incapable of sin, then Hebrews 2:17 and Galatians 4:4 are both false. These are not mere “paradoxes.” They are blatant logical contradictions which defy clear statements of Scripture.
Trinitarianism tries to deflect the problem by appealing to the hypostatic union (the alleged “dual nature” of Jesus), claiming Jesus acts and responds “from his human nature” or “from his divine nature” depending on the context. Jesus’ physical weaknesses and limitations are thus attributed to his human nature, while his supernatural capacity is attributed to his divine nature. But this effectively turns the two natures into two de facto persons, thereby lapsing into the heresy of Nestorianism and begging the question: what does it mean to act or respond “from one’s nature”? If we allow doctrine to be illogical, it becomes arbitrary and ceases to be meaningful. There is no point in systematic theology if our beliefs are permitted to be self-contradictory.
In previous weeks we have seen Rob’s own terms of reference are logically inconsistent. For example, he employs the name “Yahweh” in two different ways:
- As the name for the Trinity as a concept (ie. the concept of three persons in one being)
- As a name possessed by each individual member of the Trinity
Following the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, Rob is compelled to agree there is only one Yahweh, since this is the name of God and there is only one God. But he also believes the Father is called Yahweh and the Son is called Yahweh (presumably the Holy Spirit is called Yahweh as well). Yet if Father + Son + Holy Spirit = 3 because they are all distinct from each other, and if each of them can be individually referred to as Yahweh, how can this not mean there are three Yahwehs? It is yet another example of inconsistent terminology.
Rob counts the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as “three persons”, all of which are called “Yahweh”, but he doesn’t want to accept that three persons each called “Yahweh” comprise three Yahwehs. He accepts the Trinity as “three persons”, when it suits him, but at other times he wants to count the three persons as one (ie. one Yahweh, or one Lord). He does this by effectively treating the three separate persons as a single unipersonal being, which is logically inconsistent and results in Modalism (see also Dale Tuggy’s critique).
One particularly revealing aspect of Rob’s language has been his use of singular personal pronouns in reference to God. This is strange, because he does not actually believe God is a single person; he believes God is a single divine being consisting of three divine persons. To Unitarians, God is a “whom”; a single person who is also a single divine being. But to Rob and other Trinitarians, God is a “what”; a triunity of three divine persons comprising one divine being. Why, then, does he refer to this triune collective as if it was a single person? Is his use of singular pronouns unconsciously influenced by the Biblical usage, or does he honestly believe the correct pronoun for three persons is “he”?
Rob has previously argued that Genesis 1:26 is proof of multiple persons within the Godhead. In his eyes, plural personal pronouns denote a plurality of persons. By taking this position he concedes that singular personal pronouns denote a single person and leaves us asking why the Bible overwhelmingly applies singular personal pronouns to a God who is really three persons. Why not an overwhelming number of plural personal pronouns, as Rob’s own argument requires?
Some appeal to Judges 1, where the tribes of Simeon and Judah are referred to by the use of singular personal pronouns (verse 3, “Judah said to Simeon his brother”). This is used to argue there is no inconsistency in the application of singular personal pronouns to the Trinity. But Judges 1 merely personifies the two tribes and refers to those personifications using singular pronouns. Trinitarians need to explain why the OT refers to God in the use of at least 7,000 singular personal pronouns, consistently treating Him as a single being Who is also a single person.
At most, Trinitarians can offer a total of four so-called “plural personality passages” (Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8) which they claim are indicative of multiple persons within the Godhead. (A. Fruchtenbaum — Jewishness and the Trinity, 1997 — adds Genesis 20:13, 35:7, II Samuel 7:23 and Psalm 58, but this is an extreme minority position). Yet these interpretations find little or no support among current Trinitarian commentators. Even Trinitarian Bible translations such as the NET contain footnotes advocating a Unitarian interpretation of certain passages on contextual and grammatical grounds.
It is illogical to suggest that a meagre four verses within the entire OT comprise evidence of a plurality of persons within the Godhead, when the rest of the OT militates against this hypothesis. Rob has conceded (a) the OT evidence is consistent with a Biblical Unitarian God, and (b) the OT Jews understood the Shema in the same way that we Biblical Unitarians do. There is no evidence the Jews ever understood God in anything but a Unitarian sense, or that He revealed Himself to them in any other way. The burden of proof lies upon Trinitarianism to demonstrate that God provided a new revelation about His identity in the NT era.
Perhaps the greatest admission of logical incoherence comes from Trinitarians themselves. Michael Patton (“The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo”. . . And Other Stupid Statements) says:
One more thing. I often tell my students that if they say, “I get it!” or “Now I understand!” that they are more than likely celebrating the fact that they are a heretic! When you understand the biblical principles and let the tensions remain without rebuttal, then you are orthodox. When you solve the tension, you have most certainly entered into one of the errors that we seek to avoid. Confused? Good! That is just where you need to be.
Emphasis mine.
Patton urges Christians to confess an incomprehensible faith, ignoring any “tensions” which may arise and aspiring to confusion as the benchmark of orthodoxy. But did Jesus or the apostles ever preach God in this way? On the contrary, Jesus said to the woman of Samaria “You people worship what you do not know. We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). Biblical Unitarians are well positioned to repeat these words to Trinitarians.
Rob began this debate with an argument consisting of six propositions which he claimed would vindicate Trinitarianism if all proved true. But I showed that Trinitarianism is not a necessary conclusion from these propositions; they could result in several different Christologies. (Dale Tuggy has criticised the propositions on similar grounds). Thus it is not enough for Rob to prove only some of his propositions without demonstrating every aspect of Trinitarianism. In order to justify his position he must prove all of his propositions, show that they necessarily lead to the Trinity, and demonstrate every aspect of Trinitarianism from Scripture (whether directly or indirectly).
The Argument from Scripture
The argument from Scripture can be summarised thus:
- Scripture repeatedly presents us with consistent unipersonal language in reference to God (e.g. God only referred to in singular pronouns; God only referring to Himself in singular pronouns)
- Scripture repeatedly presents explicit statements depicting God as only one person
- Scripture qualifies its references to others who appear to possess attributes and titles of God
- Scripture qualifies its references to others as “god” or “gods”
- Any agent or representative of God can legitimately bear His name, exercise His authority and command a measure of His divine power
- Sin deserves death; sacrifice offers a covering for sin; only God can provide a sin-covering sacrifice (a sacrifice which is “other than God”); Jesus was that sacrifice
- The first-century Christian understanding of God’s identity comprehended all of the points listed above
- The first-century Christian understanding of God’s identity was consistent with the Old Testament Jewish understanding of God’s identity
- Biblical Unitarianism provides the best interpretation of the Biblical evidence
In Week 1 we saw the Bible defines God as one divine person who exists as a single divine being known by the name of Yahweh and consistently referred to as “Father” or “the Father”, reflecting His relationship with creation. We saw the Father possesses a wide range of unique attributes, which set Him apart from creation. We saw that NT references to God are consistent with the OT, using the same language and titles established over several thousand years of pre-Christian Jewish theology.
We saw first-century Christians did not claim to bring a new revelation about the identity of God, but drew their teaching about Him directly from the OT. We saw current scholarship accepts the first-century church was not Trinitarian, requiring Trinitarians to explain (a) why this was, and (b) how Trinitarianism successfully emerged from an ideological climate which was wholly unfavourable to it (Rob has done neither).
In Weeks 2 and 3 we saw that Jesus Christ is defined by the Bible as the Son of God, Jewish Messiah, Christian sacrifice for sin, Lord, high priest and mediator. We saw he was a mortal man, made like his brethren in every way (Hebrews 2:17), subject to the Law of Moses (Galatians 4:4) and capable of sin (Luke 4:1; cf. James 1:13-14), yet possessing the Holy Spirit “without measure” (John 3:34). We saw he worshipped the Father as his God (John 4:22, 20:17) and did not claim deity for himself.
We saw his sinless life was made possible (though not inevitable) by the advantage of his superior mental and intellectual qualities (Luke 2:46-47), his close relationship with the Father (John 1:18, 10:30, 38), and the angelic assistance he received whenever necessary (Matthew 4:11; Luke 22:43). We saw his sinless life qualified him as a perfect sacrifice for sin, thereby fulfilling the OT typology which begins in Genesis and permeates the Mosaic Law (Genesis 3:21; John 1:29; I Peter 1:19).
We saw Jesus struggled with the awful burden of his task (Matthew 26:39-42; Luke 22:42) and suffered when he was tempted (Hebrews 2:18), yet completely resisted sin (Hebrews 4:15), required release from the pains of death (Acts 2:24) and recognised this need through his prayers and supplications to God, Who was able to save him from death (Hebrews 5:7).
We saw he obediently submitted to his sacrificial death on the cross (Philippians 2:8; Colossians 1:20), genuinely died on the cross (John 19:33-34), was raised to life by the Father (Galatians 1:1) and now sits at His right hand in an exalted, glorified form (Mark 16:19; Acts 5:31; Philippians 3:21), exercising divine power, authority and judgement while he awaits his Second Advent (Matthew 25:31-46; Luke 21:27; John 5:27; Acts 1:11; Ephesians 1:20-22).
We saw Jesus received divine authority from God and was permitted to exercise this authority as the Father’s representative during his mortal life (John 5:43, 10:37) — just as angels and OT prophets had done before him — but we also saw that the full extent of his authority was unprecedented, far above any angel or prophet (Matthew 11:27, 26:53). We saw Jesus lacks crucial attributes of God, including omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. We noted differences between the mortal, pre-crucifixion Jesus and the immortal, exalted, glorified post-resurrection Jesus.
We saw Jesus is frequently honoured as God’s Son, the Jewish Messiah and king, but never worshipped as God, demonstrating that he is subordinate to the Father both functionally (by rank) and ontologically (by nature). We saw that NT teaching about Jesus was invariably derived from the OT, with Jesus and his apostles showing that the full details concerning Messiah had already been revealed in the Jewish Scriptures:
- Luke 24:27, “Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures”
- Luke 24:44, “Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.'”
- John 1:45, “Philip found Nathanael and told him, ‘We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote about — Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph'”
- Acts 26:22-23, “‘I have experienced help from God to this day, and so I stand testifying to both small and great, saying nothing except what the prophets and Moses said was going to happen: that the Christ was to suffer and be the first to rise from the dead, to proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles'”
Jesus and his apostles were adamant that everything people needed to know about him could be sourced directly from the OT. There was no “progressive revelation” about the Messiah; there was no new doctrine concerning his nature and identity; there was no change from OT to NT.
Above all, we saw that the apostolic preaching in the book of Acts reveal that they believed in a Jesus who was solely human. They baptise thousands of people in the name of a Unitarian Jesus described in terms which distinguish him from God and preclude deity. Acts contains a total of nine preaching lectures (Acts 2:22-42, 3:12-26, 7:2-56, 8:30-39, 10:34-48, 13:15-39, 17:22-31, 24:14-21, 26:2-27), revealing a list of core doctrines presented repeatedly:
- The Bible: the word of God, divinely inspired
- One God: the Father and Creator; the Holy Spirit, His power
- Jesus: the Son of God
- Jesus: a mortal man
- Jesus: his perfect life, sacrifice
- Jesus: his resurrection, glorification, and ascension
- Christ as mediator
- The second coming
- Resurrection and judgment
- Promises to Abraham: inheritance of the land
- Promises to David: his kingdom restored
- Forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, repentance, and baptism
- One body: fellowship and breaking of bread
(Summarised from What Are the First Principles?, by George Booker).
Months of preaching before thousands of people, yet no mention of the Trinity or the deity of Christ. Why not? Trinitarians respond that Acts doesn’t record everything the apostles said at every preaching event. Although true, this does not answer the question. Why would the apostles be silent on the subject of Jesus’ deity, particularly if they believed it to be an essential doctrine? Trinitarians cannot explain this.
The Trinity would have been the most important and groundbreaking doctrine of the day, yet we find no mention of it. Nor do we find any evidence of first-century Christians persecuted for believing that Jesus is God. We do find them persecuted for believing Jesus is the Messiah, and that the Law of Moses has been superseded by a new covenant (e.g. Acts 6:11, 14). We do find riots and assassination attempts resulting from the Jews’ reaction to the Gospel message.
But where is the uproar against the notion of a Messiah who is also a God-man? Where is the backlash against a triune God? There is no such uproar; there is no such backlash; there is no outcry against Trinitarian concepts. On the Trinity and the deity of Christ, the preaching record and the Jewish response are both silent. In light of the Jews’ response to the Gospel message, this is inexplicable unless proto-Trinitarian doctrines were not preached at all. And if they were not preached, why weren’t they preached?
In previous weeks we saw Trinitarians sometimes struggle with Scripture, finding it necessary to qualify even the simplest of statements. Examples emerged from Rob’s treatment of passages such as Deuteronomy 6:4, John 17:3, John 20:17, and I Corinthians 8:6. We saw Trinitarians perpetuate errors of interpretation through a failure to challenge their own theological presuppositions. Examples were demonstrated by Rodney J. Decker in his critique of kenosis theory.
We saw Trinitarians approach Scripture with a priori assumptions about its meaning and impose them onto the text. Examples were presented from the work of prominent Trinitarian scholars such as Herbert W. Bateman IV and A. T. Robertson, and emerged from Rob’s interpretation of Hebrews 1 and Philippians 2, where he presupposed Christ’s pre-existence before commencing his exegesis. We saw Rob’s arguments are often based upon, or derived from, logical fallacies, including:
- affirming the consequent
- false dichotomy
- affirmative conclusion from negative premise
- argument from ignorance
- argument from silence
- straw man
- special pleading
These are not the hallmarks of sound interpretation.
In Week 4 we saw that the OT provides a consistent doctrine of the Spirit as the power of God manifesting His divine presence; yet not a divine person (“God the Holy Spirit”) or the totality of God Himself. We saw that throughout the OT, God’s Holy Spirit is described as something that belongs to Him, like a property or a power. We saw that the NT follows this model exactly, without deviating in any way from OT teaching. There is no new revelation about the identity of the Holy Spirit. We saw occasional personification, but no evidence of literal personality. We saw the apostles received the Holy Spirit as a miraculous gift that they passed on at their own discretion.
In Week 5 we saw the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were each recognised as sources of apostolic authority (Matthew 28:19, Luke 9:1, II Corinthians 12:11-12, I Thessalonians 4:8) but only two (Father and Son) were recognised as literal persons. We saw they occasionally mentioned the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the same context, but not in any way which suggests they are three distinct persons who together comprise the totality of God. We saw that even John’s divine revelation of the heavenly court displays Jesus as a distinct being entirely separate from the Father, and does not portray the Holy Spirit at all.
Rob claimed the Trinity is “implicit” in the Bible (without providing examples of “implicit doctrine” as opposed to “explicit doctrine”), but avoided raising central issues like the temptation and atonement of Christ in his primary arguments. Presumably he did this to minimise the burden of proof and present me with a smaller target.
While his position is convenient for a debate, it is theologically weak, leaving the first-Century Christians with only a loose conceptual framework from which Trinitarianism might be conceivably (but not necessarily) derived. It results in a first-century church which is not Trinitarian in any true sense of the word, and lacks a clear articulation of Christ’s deity. It also begs the question of why the Trinity is merely “implicit” in a book inspired by divine revelation, spanning almost 4,000 years of history, throughout which God claimed to be providing humanity with a complete picture of His identity and purpose.
Why did God allow His chosen people to believe He is only one divine person instead of three, right up until the Christian era? Why did He conceal His triune identity? What was the rationale behind this divine deception? When and where was the new revelation first made clear? Rob claims it is “implicit”, but why only “implicit”? All the other key apostolic doctrines are explicitly preached. How can divinely inspired church leaders fail to provide an explicit teaching of the triune God if that is what they genuinely believe? Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth (John 16:13); why didn’t it lead them to Trinitarianism?
The Argument from History
In Week 5 we also saw the doctrinal foundations of Trinitarianism in early extra-Biblical Christian writings from the 2nd Century AD. We saw that the heretical and apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas contains the very first example of Genesis 1:26 being used as a proof text for the pre-existence of Christ. This verse was not used by Jesus, his apostles, or the earliest post-Biblical Christians such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome and Ignatius.
We saw the evolution of “Logos Christology” in the writings of Justin Martyr, who believed that Jesus was not literally God but only a type of divine super-being created by the Father and through whom He created the world. We saw this belief was held in various forms by most second- and third-century Christians, including prominent theologians such as Theophilus, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Origen, Methodius and Tertullian. Christology continued to develop through a variety of successive heresies (Sabellianism, Patripassianism, Arianism, Homoiousianism, etc.)
We saw Trinitarianism began to take shape at the Council of Nicaea in AD325, in an era when Christianity became politicised under the reign of Constantine. We saw this initial Trinitarian definition was incomplete, being gradually refined by successive councils over the next 120 years. We saw even in the late 4th Century there was no consensus on the deity of Christ or the Holy Spirit, and prominent Trinitarian scholars were accused of tritheism. Does this sound like the faith once preached by the apostles?
Historically, doctrine always develops from the minimal to the complex, evolving as it is exposed to new influences and adapting in response to perceived heresies. Thus, the simplest doctrinal statements are more likely to be the earliest and most authentic. It is therefore significant that the earliest Christian creedal statements are Unitarian. They begin with simple, Biblical formulae:
Ephesians 4:4-6, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you too were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all”
Later post-Biblical era Christians employed identical language to express an identical theology. The Didache (a late first-century church manual) contains a summary of key beliefs including salvation by grace, the need for repentance, the ritual of baptism, the Eucharistic meal, the identity of Jesus Christ, the Second Advent, and the resurrection of the dead. These are supported by copious quotations from the NT, demonstrating that the apostolic writings were in wide circulation and upheld as the benchmark of orthodoxy. Yet there is no mention of three persons in the Godhead; there is no suggestion that Jesus is God.
Rediscovering the God of Israel and His Human Son, Jesus Christ
Before concluding, I would like to thank Rob and his colleagues at Parchment & Pen for arranging this debate and permitting a robust exchange. I am particularly grateful to Rob for candidly acknowledging the high Christology of Biblical Unitarianism and the strength of the evidence in our favour.
The Biblical Unitarian Jesus is a Messiah you can relate to, because he can relate to you. Unlike the Trinitarian Jesus, he genuinely understands your pain and sympathises with your temptations, because he is truly human. He once experienced the very sufferings that you endure (and more!)
Some Trinitarians are beginning to recognise that the deity of Christ poses a challenge to our relationship with him. Scott Lencke is one who has carefully reconsidered Jesus’ humanity and its theological implications. In a thoughtful article on his blog he sensitively addresses the problem of a Jesus who was never really the same as us, but only pretended to be.
Key phrases stand out in Lencke’s analysis:
I do believe that we are a little too afraid to admit to what it really meant for Jesus to be human… I believe that it’s quite easy for us to believe that Jesus was somehow more divine than human. Or we at least talk about him in a way that says he was more divine than human… Yet, we must be honest and recognise that this can cut at an important part of Christ – his humanity… Think about what you and I go through. Think about what it means to be one who is fully human. To do so, I believe Christ would have had to lay aside every aspect of his divinity… I believe Christ, in his human incarnation, laid aside his omniscience, his omnipresence and his omnipotence. All of it!
Lencke has challenged the unconscious Docetism beneath the surface of lay Trinitarianism as an obstacle to our relationship with Christ. Scripture says it was essential for Jesus to be made like us in every way so that he could relate to us and act as our mediator to God. Yet if he was never truly one of us, he cannot understand us in the way that Scripture describes. To believe in a human Jesus we must accept he is not God. Lencke believes Jesus is God, but can only achieve a truly human Christ by committing himself to full kenosis theology. This drastic step is a testament to his intellectual honesty; he recognises the need to resolve one of the “tensions” that Michael Patton, Rob Bowman and others would prefer us to ignore.
In Week 1 of this debate I emphasised that Christianity began as a Jewish religion. That Jewish foundation is critical to our interpretation of Scripture. The first Christians were Jews; they interpreted Scripture from a Jewish perspective; they described God and Jesus using OT language and Messianic typology. They were able to express every aspect of their faith by the use of Scripture alone, as Biblical Unitarians still do today. They affirmed a belief in the God of Israel and His human Son, the Jewish Messiah.
Biblical Unitarianism calls for a return to those Jewish roots. I urge you to rediscover Israel’s God; the God Whom Jesus himself worshipped; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — not the God of Justin Martyr, Arius, or Basil the Great. If God is not three persons, Christianity loses nothing but regains its necessary connection with God’s chosen people, the Jews. Don’t accept anything I have written throughout this debate unless you have confirmed it is consistent with reason, Scripture and history. Search God’s Word for the true gospel of Jesus Christ, as the Bereans did.
God is near to all those who call on Him. Seek Him while He may be found.
112 replies to "The Great Trinity Debate, Part 6: Dave Burke’s Closing Statement"
“There is a place and a time for anger, rebuking and hatred in the Christian life.”
Your posts in this blog so far are evidence enough that you readily erupt with these three mannerisms, Sam Shamoun.
But you are no prophet or apostle, and you most certainly have displayed no Christ-like characteristics in your postings.
You must learn to control your rage for your own sake mainly. Do you not realise that your arguments are greatly diminished because of your offensive and hectoring tone?
Mr Shamoun,
You’re no prophet! You’re no Christ (I hope not)! To you apply the words in Col. 6:4 and 1 Pet. 3:15 as they apply to everyone of us! You are no special case, sorry.
Our Lord, Christ Jesus came to save humble, honest-hearted people. In God’s Sovreignty He made no provision for self-righteous, pious individuals, Mr Shamoun. Your attitude stifles open-hearted and honest-hearted discussion of possible salvatory doctrine. It is people like the ranting and raving Muslims, uncivilised anti-missionaries and yourself who make atheists of potential believers! You give fodder to angry atheists, anti-christs and agnostics. And the worst of all, you couldn’t care less. You don’t care if you stumble someone. You don’t care what harm you do to God’s and Christ’s names. Mr Shamoun, I don’t want to be in your shoes. With the mean-spiritedness you’ve consistently been displaying, the spiritual corpses of searching individuals lie scattered across your way. Their blood will be exacted from your hands.
I’m sure Calvin the Murderer also had excuses for his permission-based reasoning when he brutally murdered Servetus. You display an identical spirit. So, publicly you’ve been exposed as someone failing to produce the spirit you confess to believe in. Until you repent, your unchristian demeanor and conduct will publicly witness against your eligibility to be a Witness of Jesus. I’ll leave it there. What is more, the double standards the administrators of this blog maintain allow people like you to do and say and harm just as you please, while you’ve clearly violated the terms of this blog…speaking about silence of approval.
In your self-righteousness and all, I hand you over to Christ. But I won’t call you a heretic (unlike what you did) and I will still respect you (whether you deserve it, is Christ’s call). I hope we’ll be able one day to have a civilised discussion over Biblical matters.
In His service,
Jaco
Scott:
Sure, of course Trinitarians can define the words “being” and “person” in a way that allows them to communicate what they mean by a Triune God. They can do whatever they like to get the result they need. If they have to create new terminology to express their Christology, then let them do it! But this really misses the point, as you’ll see in a moment.
Well, there are two issues here.
Firstly, you’re referring to my definitions of “deity” and “divine” as if they’re soley mine. But they’re not; my definitions are simply the normative definitions. They’re no different to the definitions you’ll find in a dictionary or encyclopaedia. These definitions are not unique to me. I am, in fact, using the pre-established, universally accepted definitions of these words.
It is therefore invalid to draw a parallel between my definitions of “deity” and “divine”, and the Trinitarian definitions of “person” and “being”, because you’re not comparing like with like. The Trinitarian definitions of “person” and “being” are contrary to the normative definitions, the Trinitarian usage of these words is contrary to the normative usage, and the Trinitarian usage of these words is contrary to the Scriptural usage. Frankly, that last one is the kicker.
Secondly, you ask if I can allow for Trinitarians to define and explain the words “being” and “person” in ways that do not match my preference. Of course I can allow it! I’ve never disallowed it. You will recall that I even asked Rob to provide his definition of “person” in the very first week of this debate, and continued to press for definitions of “person” and “being” in the weeks that followed. I didn’t tell him that he wasn’t allowed to construct and explain his own definitions; on the contrary, I actually asked him to present them.
I think Rob initially said that he’d do this in Week 5, but by the end of the debate my request was still unanswered. I waited 6 weeks for a response, hoping that Rob might at least be encouraged to join me in a discussion of the classical formulae, e.g. three hypostases in one ousia (this could have led to an interesting exchange on Marcellus of Ancyra, assuming Rob is familiar with Marcellus and understands the relevance of his work), but to no avail.
This was all very strange; I simply couldn’t understand Rob’s reluctance to deal with what I considered to be a very simple question. (Perhaps he was put off by my secondary question, in which I asked for evidence that Scripture uses the words “person” and “being” in the way that Trinitarinism requires. I appreciate that this was a tough one). At any rate, Rob finally attempted to clarify the point in a belated supplementary comment, after a fellow Trinitarian complained that the issue was still outstanding. So at least some sort of answer has been forthcoming.
Please understand: this is not about whether I believe Trinitarians are allowed to construct their own definitions. Trinitarians can make up whatever ballyhoo they need to make these words fit their Christology, just as the subordinationists and Arians did before them. Every theological innovator requires new language to express his novel ideas, and Trinitarianism is no different. The crux of the matter hinges upon two key points: (a) why Trinitarians find it necessary to invent new definitions in the first place, when first-century Christians did not, and (b) whether or not these new definitions are supported by Scripture.
It’s the second of these points that presents the real headache for Trinitarianism. Rob cannot find any place in Scripture that uses or defines these words in the way that Trinitarianism requires. Even the brilliant Cappadocians (Basil and the two Gregories), largely responsible for formalising the uniquely Trinitarian definitions of “person” and “being”, complained that their theology was misunderstood and strongly opposed by some of their contemporaries, who considered it heretical.
Look at the way Gregory of Nyssa expressed this element of the new Christology:
Gregory of Nazianzus had his own helpful explanation:
Honestly Scott, is this what you believe? It’s not what the apostles confessed and taught.
I just want to make a comment to those that maybe aren’t regular readers of this blog. The moderators/admin folks here are very busy people and do not always have time to follow these lengthy threads. So when things go on that are not according to the blog rules, it is very likely because they are not even aware of it happening.
All comments on this blog were recently moderated before being posted. That definitely slows down comments and interaction drastically.
TE:
You’re very welcome; it’s my pleasure. If you want to discuss anything further, feel free to visit my discussion forum (www.thechristadelphians.org/forums) or the good folks at Kingdom Ready (www.kingdomready.org/blog).
🙂
Dave Burke,
You were replying to TE in your last comment. TE said, “I am very encouraged to find Judaism–that embraces a Messiah.”
I am wondering from the reply you gave him if Christadelphians consider themselves to be a form of Judaism? I may be misunderstanding what you said, I don’t know. Could you elaborate or be a bit more specific? I don’t want to misunderstand where you are coming from here.
Dave,
Thank you for your honest and well thought-out articles and replies. My respect for you has grown with every instalment of your posts. As you saw with my comments over at kingdomready.org/blog, you have impressed many a unitarian and non-unitarian.
I’d like to mention something regarding the “multiplicity” of Yahweh, according to the trinity. As Bowman repeatedly said, according to the post-biblical creeds, there are 3 persons in one being. All three are each Yahweh, making up one Yahweh. So, formally stated, trinitarians believe in three personal Yahwehs in one ontological Yahweh. That, my friend, is a conundrum Hinduism would just dream to have. As you said, it is stated ad nauseam, without any proof provided.
TE, we’d love to see you at kingdomready.org/blog. Feel free to engage anyone of us. We’re eagerly awaiting chatting with you.
Jaco
Cherylu,
A response to your question to Dave Burke: “I am wondering from the reply you gave him if Christadelphians consider themselves to be a form of Judaism?”
No, Christadelphians do not and have never considered themselves to be a form of Judaism. Howewer, like the apostle Paul they set the greatest store on identification with “the hope of Israel”. There is plenty of Christadelphian material on this matter.
From reading quite a few of your posts on this blog and also over at trinities.org/blog/ you seem to read rather a lot in to what people say. Dave’s response to TE merely invites him over to a few places where discussion can take place if TE is so inclined.
Jaco, thanks for your kind words. I have appreciated your support throughout the debate.
medunkt,
Thanks for your reply.
By the way, did you think I seemed “to read rather a lot in to what people say,” by asking Dave this question? TE made this statement in his comment to Dave, “I am very encouraged to find Judaism–that embraces a Messiah.” And Dave at the start of his reply said, “You’re very welcome; it’s my pleasure.” How did I read something into it?? And by the way, I didn’t assume that Christadelphian’s consider themselves a form of Judaism, I asked in order to clarify.
cherylu,
Yes, you’ve accurately repeated TE’s and Dave’s little exchange.
Your subsequent question to Dave was: “I am wondering from the reply you gave him if Christadelphians consider themselves to be a form of Judaism?”.
I took your words “from the reply you gave him” to mean that Dave’s response to TE suggested to you that Christadelphianism might really be a form of Judaism.
I’m glad to learn that you didn’t assume this to be the case, and that you didn’t read something in to Dave’s words that isn’t there.
The strong Christadelphian focus on the “hope of Israel” explains their empathy towards Jews generally, by the way.
The comments from the anti-Trinitarians here in which Paul’s observation that God is not a God of confusion is turned into a mantra against the Trinity are typical Scripture-twisting. What really causes confusion is a babel of voices claiming to speak for God that cannot agree and that provide no guidance for determining what really is the truth. Dave, like other anti-Trinitarians, misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity and concludes on the basis of his distorted representation of it that it is confusing. In reality, he has confused matters by his misrepresentations.
Dave, I just wanted to say what an absolutely fantastic job you have done here in presenting the Unitarian view. At the start of the debate, I was worried you’d find it hard going up against a “professional”, yet you have managed to surpass all my expectations, you have out-argued Rob in so many areas and I will be happily voting for you in the poll for who we think “won” the debate. Great job.
“A babel of voices claiming to speak for God”? You’re getting a wee bit histrionic here aren’t you Rob? You’ve been put on the spot time and time again and of course you don’t like it. But let’s leave aside your opponent, Dave Burke, for now and for his fellow “misrepresenters” and “distorters”.
As you’re aware, Dale Tuggy over on the Trinities blog — certainly not a Christadelphian and a neutral, exceptionally well-informed observer — has pointed out inadequacy after inadequacy in your reasonings and conclusions.
Come on Rob, this sort of invective isn’t worthy of you or your opponents, and it isn’t worthy of the sincere and committed truth-seekers on both sides who are following this rolling discussion with much interest.
Return to the issues at hand please and let’s continue to reason together!
medunkt,
I don’t blame you for wanting to turn this into a debate between me and Tuggy, but that’s not what we’re doing here.
My comment was not invective, nor histrionic, nor a diversion from the issue. Several anti-Trinitarians, including Dave, have appealed to Paul’s statement about “confusion” as an argument against the Trinity. It’s a bad argument.
Paul W,
You wrote:
“Did Jesus pray to himself, trust in himself and raise himself? How does that relate to me? How do I share in that ‘phantom’ victory? The questions keep coming and cannot be answered. No wonder Trinitarians elevate paradox and confusion to the level of virtue and despise reason and clear teaching.”
The “confusion” here is in you. Trinitarianism does not teach that Jesus prayed to himself or trusted in himself. The question demonstrates that you are not making a serious effort to engage what Trinitarians actually believe.
As for Jesus raising himself, you might want to take a look at John 2:19-22.
Rob cannot get around the fact that he is promoting we should believe in an unknowable god. That we should be satisfied by the Trinitarian conclusion which has been made about, not who, but what God is. To Trinitarians God is not a “who” but a “what”. Their claim is that there are three persons that are to be believed as the one God. These three persons are each a “who”, the Father is God, “who” is one person; Jesus is God “who” is another person and the Holy Spirit is God “who” is the third person. The “what” they claim is the one God. Those three persons are “what”, not “who”, the one God is. Therefore, in order for each person to be the one God they must all share the essential attributes of what it means to be the one God. This is what is meant by “three persons in one substance”. The three persons are each “equally God” because they share the same essence or attributes, without which, it could not be said that each is equally God. In other words, if one of the three persons were to NOT share the very nature of whom/what we understand God to be, then that person could not be said to be “very God of very God”.
Jesus is said to have two natures, the nature of God and the nature of man. To possess the nature of man is to be NOT God. Man is a creature and therefore not God. If Jesus’ nature is that of man then he cannot be God. Jesus must possess the essential nature of God in order to be God.
The problem for the Trinitarian is that the Bible does not speak of Jesus as possessing the essential attributes of what/who is defined as what we understand to be God. God is God because HE alone possesses, in perfection, all the qualities of what it means to be the One true God.
In an attempt to explain how Jesus can be “fully” and “very” God but yet be spoken of as NOT possessing fully that which we understand to be essential of God, Trinitarians claim that Jesus “laid aside” certain attributes while he took on the form or nature of…
man. However, this will not do. Jesus could at no point be not God and God at the same time. Jesus could not empty himself of what is essential to be God and yet still be God. How could Jesus be “fully God” and “very God of very God” if at some point he did not possess what we know to be God? And if you say that Jesus never stopped being fully God but simply, at certain times, chose not to avail himself of what it means to be God then you make God a liar.
Jesus not knowing the time of his return is a true statement. If Jesus never stopped being “fully God” than he is omniscient, and if omniscient, would have known the time of his return. If Jesus did know the time of his return but said that he did not, then this is a lie if ever there was one. It matters not whether Jesus laid aside his deity, he could at no point be God and not God. If Jesus was fully God, then instead of saying what any reasonable person can see is a lie, could have simply just said that it was not for them to know the time of his return.
The only conclusion, which can be reasonably made, is that by claiming Jesus to be fully God, Trinitarians have made God to be a liar.
Charles,
First of all, why don’t you actually address the arguments I presented, instead of criticizing things I didn’t say and dealing only with generalities?
Second, if the Bible teaches that Jesus is God and you say he isn’t, who is “making God out to be a liar”?
Helez,
You asked, “How can a ‘someone’ not be an individual?”
I don’t know. How can God have no beginning? How can God be omnipresent? How can God know what you’re thinking when you don’t say anything out loud? How can a virgin get pregnant without sex and without artificial insemination or any other such technology?
Dave,
You wrote:
“The Trinitarian definitions of ‘person’ and ‘being’ are contrary to the normative definitions, the Trinitarian usage of these words is contrary to the normative usage, and the Trinitarian usage of these words is contrary to the Scriptural usage. Frankly, that last one is the kicker.”
I have already shown, Dave, that the Trinitarian definition or use of “being” is not contrary to its normal usage. As for the term “person,” I have also pointed out that this word really is not in the Bible at all. You’ve seen that comment in which I explained these things, but you continue to make claims that I have refuted. I have also explained why the word is used as it is in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Rob,
You have only been deceived into believing the Bible teaches Jesus is God. I know that is true because I believe God is omniscient and Jesus is not. Jesus said he did not know the time of his return, therefore, he is either a liar or he truly did not know. What other option is there? The fact that you have been deceived into a false philosophy, makes, in your belief, God a liar. You cannot get around it man.
Rob
Would you say that my understanding of the trinity is not at all your understanding? I think with that understanding, as I stated it, I would be accepted and welcomed at most any trinitarian gathering.
Rob says that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, and if I say he is not, then who is “making God out to be a liar?”
Rob, it ought to be enough that Jesus himself explictly says that ONLY his Father knows the time of Jesus’ return. Jesus always spoke the truth, and by saying that “my Father only” he explictly excludes himself.
Now, you my have been deceived into a false philosophy which concludes that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God, but I have the truthful words of Jesus himself who denies it. Jesus cannot be God if he is not omniscient. Did Jesus ever once say he was God? NO.
It ought to be enough for any person, with ears to hear and eyes to see, to know that Jesus has denied being God. But no, people would rather follow the false philosophers, teachers and fathers of “orthodoxy” then Jesus’ very own words.
Mr. Bowman, You mentioned previously that you had initially approached scripture with a skeptical mind. I can see that you now view all scripture through the lens of Trinitarianism.
In the spirit of discovery and truth seeking, it would be very interesting if you took some time privately to actually consider the Unitarian view. Not a public debate where you stand resolutely in your position. I suggest a quiet evening where you approach the scripture and try to find the truth of the Unitarian view. Read the scriptures as Mr. Burke has suggested from an Unitarian view. And deeply reflect. Set aside the dogma and endeavor to understand HOW reasonable men (such as Mr. Burke) have come to understand the words of Scripture so differently than you do. Become a Unitarian—if only for an evening. Approach all of the paradoxes and “unknowables” as a Unitarian and consider.
I believe that until you can see and understand the “other side”–you don’t fully understand your own position but merely regurgitate a “dogma”. I know this task may be particularly difficult for someone in your position–who has spent a lifetime building a reputation (and staking an ego) upon Trinitarian views.
They say that the hallmark of the “genius” mind is the ability to simultaneously understand (and embrace) both sides of any argument. Have you honestly (mentally) experienced the Unitarian viewpoint?
I do hope, for your own sake, that you find truth.
George – I’m confused – how did a paragraph from my post no. 6 end up word for word as your post (No. 11)? Though I don’t object – and I hasten to add, I’m glad you agree with me!
Jesus prayed to his Father regarding his disciples, that “they may all be one, JUST AS you, Father are in me, and I in you, that they ALSO may be in us” and ‘that THEY MAY BECOME ONE EVEN AS we are one, I in them, and you in me, that they may become perfectly one”. Does anyone seriously imagine that the disciples (and those ‘who will believe in me through their word’) will be at any stage formed into some kind of plural-yet-multitudinously-individual gestalt being either separate to or super-added to the Trinity? Far from it, I don’t think anyone has any problem in understanding that Jesus is describing a way of thinking – an intellectual, spiritual, moral and emotional connection. Being at one is language describing a condition of harmony of spirit, of soul, if you like, which we still use about everything from patriotism to true love to family loyalties. Esoteric philosophising in the name of superior religious comprehension, only obscures commonsense understanding of scripture.
Dave Burke has done a brilliant job of patiently tracking the Minotaur through a labyrinth of darkness, dealing with it, and dragging the carcase into the light to be seen for what it is. Thanks, Dave – although I know you have not done this solely in your own strength, I’m so glad you have met the challenge with such competence and confidence, and debated in a respectful manner.
Thanks to Rob for proposing the Debate, and giving it fair coverage.
I hope and pray that many others will look further into the beautiful (and logical) workings of the mind of the Master of the Universe, revealed to us in the Bible, where He has presented us with “the things concerning the name of Jesus Christ, and the Kingdom of God.”
[…] the 6th and closing round, Burke argues from reason, scripture, and […]
Would someone explain to me why Trinitarians reject Jesus’ explict denial that he is God but yet make him God anyway?
Is it acceptable to the Trinitarian mind to reject Jesus’ own words and follow the philosophies and teachings of men?
Dave Burke,
Thank you for taking the time to explain the position of “Biblical Unitarianism.” (For whatever reason, I had never heard of it before.) While I unashamedly take the trinitarian position with Rob Bowman I did read through your posts and appreciate how you attempted to be Biblical in your presentation.
However while I have found your arguments to make some points against trinitarianism, I do not believe that you have Biblically proven the Biblical Unitarian position.
The biggest holes in your arguments have to do with who Christ is/was and how he accomplished his work as redeemer. Among other problems, you failed to explain the verses which teach His preexistence and His role in creation, to convince me how the BU Jesus could have borne the sins of the whole world, why the BU Jesus accepted worship when only God could be worshipped, etc. Your arguments concerning Jesus would fit much better with a Jesus/Christ who was some kind of demi-god, created before all else.
Secondly, you did not convincingly refute those verses which show the personality of the Holy Spirit to show He was just some kind of “force” from God.
However, you DID give explanations which made God and the Bible “make sense.” By creating a God who makes complete sense to us you go against everything we understand about the God of the Bible: He is uncreated yet created time and space, He knows all things, He is personally present everywhere (and does everything else that the Bible says He does). It appears you have created a god in your own (human) image that is not the God of the Bible.
Sorry, but if you are trying to create a Biblical alternative to trinitarianism, I think you need to go back to the drawing board. 😉
LOGICAL FALLACIES: A REVIEW
For those who are trying to assess the arguments that Dave and I have presented, it is important to consider specific examples of mistakes in fact or reasoning that either of us alleges the other made. Dave provides the following list of alleged fallacies in my argumentation during the course of the debate:
• affirming the consequent
• false dichotomy
• affirmative conclusion from negative premise
• argument from ignorance
• argument from silence
• straw man
• special pleading
I have reviewed the entire debate, and I found places where Dave indeed alleged I committed some of these fallacies. In the case of some of these fallacies, I could not even find any specific instances in which he made these allegations. I don’t think Dave made any of these criticisms stick.
In my closing statement, I reviewed the substance of our debate and gave numerous links to my essays and comments where I articulated and defended the arguments I presented. In this comment, I will provide an equally specific list of 25 of the logical fallacies that I have identified in Dave’s argumentation in the course of the debate, with links to my comments where I pointed out these problems. This is not an exhaustive list, but includes those examples most easily or simply identifiable. Note: It will do no good to bother trying to respond to this list without first going back and reading my explanation of what Dave said and why it is fallacious.
Ten Arguments from Silence
Dave made frequent use of arguments from silence throughout the debate. In some cases, ironically, the alleged silence was no silence at all. In all of these instances, though, the argument is logically fallacious.
• No mention of the Holy Spirit in Matthew 11:27
• NET Bible footnote on Isaiah 7:14 does not say that it means that Jesus is God
• The Bible never uses latreuō or sebomai with Jesus as object
• John 1:1-3 does not mention the name “Jesus”
• Jesus failed to “use the language of triune personality” at John 17:3
• Supposedly no one appealed to the plural pronouns in Genesis to support plural divine persons before Hermas
• Why was Jesus not accused of claiming to be God at his trial?
• Why aren’t the thrones, dominions, etc., mentioned in Genesis 1?
• Supposedly no mention of the Holy Spirit in Revelation 4-5
• The Holy Spirit is supposedly not mentioned in visions of heaven, does not have a name, does not use personal pronouns to refer to himself, and is not mentioned in sermons in Acts as a third person (okay, that’s actually four arguments from silence)
Ten Straw-Man Misrepresentations
Caricature in argumentation is the fallacy of presenting a highly distorted version of one’s opponent’s position in order to make it look silly or absurd. A closely related fallacy is knocking down a straw man, the fallacy of misrepresenting the opposing view as an obviously false or easily dismissed position instead of addressing the actual opposing view in its full strength. These two fallacies are so closely related (if one even wishes to distinguish them) that I will simply combine them into this one category. I’m sorry to say that Dave’s descriptions of Trinitarianism frequently resorted to such misrepresentations. Each of the following statements is a misrepresentation of Trinitarianism or of Trinitarian reasoning drawn from Dave’s posts and comments.
• The Incarnation means that Jesus is both God and not-God (in the same respect)
• The mere use of theos for Jesus does not prove he is God
• Trinitarians think that “one” in John 10:30 means “one but with room for two more if I need them”
• Trinitarians cannot mean it when they claim to affirm that Jesus is human
• Trinitarians cannot affirm that Jesus’ sonship is unique
• Trinitarians claims that kurios means YHWH whenever it suits them, without providing any evidence from the context
• I supposedly claimed that the Psalms quoted in Hebrews had nothing to do with the Israelite kings
• I supposedly claimed that John 13:3 and 16:28 use the words “down from heaven”
• Michael Patton says that Christians should aspire to confusion
• The Trinity teaches three Lords who are not three Lords, and three individuals who are only one being
Five Other Fallacious Arguments
So this comment will not be unmanageably long, I will limit the rest of my list to just five more notable examples of fallacious arguments in Dave’s posts and comments, bringing the total number of specific examples of fallacious arguments to 25.
• Guilt by association: Shepherd of Hermas appealed to the plural pronouns in Genesis to support plural persons, but Hermas is heretical
• Overgeneralization: the apostles are “always” careful to distinguish Jesus from God
• Selective evidence: The Messiah was to be “only” human
• Begging the question: If the Messiah was to be human, he cannot be God
• Suppressing contrary evidence: discussing scholarship on the meaning of harpagmos in Philippians 2:6 while ignoring the now dominant view, “something to be exploited”
I don’t think further comment on this aspect of the debate is necessary.
Dave,
I asked this same question on the thread that you were just recently posting on, Rob’s article, part 5 of this debate. After I put it there, I realized that you may very well not see it on that thread, so I am going to ask it here again.
It was:
Dave,
I don’t remember these two verses being discussed in this debate. I am wondering how you as a Unitarian understand them?
Zecariah 12:10 “”I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.”
John 19:37 “And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced”.
In Zechariah 12, it is the LORD speaking and He speaks of Himself as being the one that is pierced. In John, this is referred to as a prophecy that was fulfilled in Jesus death. How could the LORD refer to Himself as being the one pierced here if Jesus was not also that LORD? This seems to be way more then agency at work here to me.
[…] to his credit Bowman puts up a manly and forthright defense of positive mysterianism (comment #3 here). He smacks down a misinterpretation of John 4:22, and makes the excellent point that it is […]
[…] is it humble to rest in an apparently contradictory interpretation of the various texts? This comment by Bowman was telling: As a debater, I could be pleased by the approach that you took to this […]
I believe Zechariah 12:10 describes the pain which God the Father experienced when His son Jesus suffered the agonies of crucifixion. “Love Me, love my son – Hurt my son, hurt Me” is something every parent can understand. This Son was suffering for his future family’s sake so that many others could also become true children of God. (Heb 2:20 “In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering” NIV)
The atoning sacrifice of Christ allowed that others could be ‘counted as’ righteous, and therefore despite the sinful nature which would otherwise separate them from God, be rescued from eternal death. But the sacrifice of His Son was not a cold-blooded business affair – it grieved Jesus’ all-loving Heavenly Father, just as it did Jesus’ earthly mother, as in Luke 2:35 “Yea a sword shall pierce thy own soul also.”
You will notice that the verse says, “They will look on ME whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for HIM as one mourns for his only son,” (just as God did) “and shall be in bitterness for HIM as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.”
As his verse shows, whatever is done to the Son of God is also done to his Father, and the rest of His family. Anyone with strong family bonds understands this (nothing to do with a trinity). Jesus himself gave us the converse, Matt 25:40 “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” This is clear enough by the rules of common language use.
The Bible was written for ordinary people to understand Whom God is, and His purpose with mankind, which may be done by anyone who lays aside their preconceptions, and reads intelligently, with an honestly enquiring heart. Preconceptions (particularly those accepted by the ubiquitous ‘everyone’ and supported by scholarly opinion ) are hard things to be recognised…
Susan Knight,
The only trouble with your take on Zechariah 12:10 is that it doesn’t fit with John’s interpretation of it at the crucifixion. He uses it there along with the verse about not a bone of His being broken, speaks of seeing these things himself and says that this fulfills the Scripture that says, “They shall look on Him whom they have pierced.” John 19:37 Obviously, John was referring to Jesus being pierced, not the Father. Although I don’t know why the pronoun changes from “me” to “him” in the Zechariah verse.
cherylu,
I usually receive new comments via email but for some reason they’re not always getting through, so I missed your earlier post about John 19 & Zechariah 12. Susan has given an excellent answer, but I will add a little more.
The quote in John 19:37 (“They will look on the one whom they have pierced”, or “They will look on him whom they have pierced”) follows the text of Zechariah 12:10 as it appears in at least 45 Hebrew manuscripts, and is accepted by many modern English Bibles (e.g. RSV, NRSV, CEB, NAB, BBE).
Some alternative manuscripts of Zechariah 12:10 contradict this with “They will look to me whom they have pierced”, which might suggest that Yahweh Himself has died. (I guess the idea of a dying God is fine for people who believe that Yahweh is mortal, but the inspired Jewish writers certainly didn’t believe this and neither do I).
Yet there is no indication that Jesus is speaking in Zechariah 12:10, and no indication that John believed him to be the speaker in this verse. On the contrary, John quotes the traditional reading, telling us that “they will look on him whom they have pierced.” Since he was writing under divine inspiration, we can be sure that this reading is legitimate and represents the text in the form that it was available to him.
F. F. Bruce (a well known evangelical scholar and textual critic) explains this very well:
(History of the Bible in English, Lutterworth Press, 1979, pp199-200).
As a Trinitarian, Bruce believed in the deity of Christ, but he saw no evidence for it in Zechariah 12:10 and did not believe that John understood the verse in that way.
As you’ve pointed out, the reading “they will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him” is still problematic for Trinitarianism, since the switch from “me” to “him” identifies two separate individuals. You need Jesus to be the one claiming to be pierced so you can say he is Yahweh, yet the person claiming to be pierced refers to someone else as the person whom the Jews will mourn. Clearly there are two persons in view here, and Jesus can’t be both of them!
The NET Bible makes no attempt to solve this problem, but the Jewish Publication Society Bible does. Their translation looks like this:
This translation agrees with the interpretation favoured by F. F. Bruce, who wrote:
(The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol VII, Abingdon Press, 1996, p.828).
So we have two choices:
Either way, the verse supports Biblical Unitarianism.
Just one small addition on the verse in Zechariah and John (not connected with Me/Him). F.F. Bruce states the common opinion that piercing is the piercing by the Roman soldier. However, John uses a completely different verb in both cases so close together, and I do not think that a coincidence. The verb in “whom they pierced” is always connected with killing, while all the soldier did was prove Christ had already died. The piercing has the wider meaning of the cruxification. Zechariah is not talking about an isolated Roman soldier, but the Jewish nation. “Whom they have pierced”.
Dave,
I’ve been reading this debate with much enthusiasm (just came across it two days ago). I identify myself as being a non-denominational Christian as I adhere to the non-Trinitarian view myself but have yet to find a Unitarian denomination that doesn’t claim it is the redeemer of lost knowledge (an almost Gnostic flavor in my opinion). Of note, I find it incredibly interesting that many “orthodox Christians” I speak with have little to no knowledge of the Trinitarian doctrine their espoused denomination preaches. My understanding of the different doctrines practiced/preached by orthodox denominations is somewhat extensive and, through this debate, my curiosity in Christadelphia has been peaked. I would have posted these questions to your forum however, the process seems convoluted at best. I have three questions regarding Christadelphian doctrine:
1) Why is service in the armed forces/police disallowed (inferred from the following doctrine as stated on http://www.thechristadelphians.org : we are not at liberty to serve in the army, or as police constables , take part in politics, or recover debts by legal coercion)?
2) Is the actual act of water baptism necessary for salvation? So often, denominations dance around this subject, stating that true baptism comes from the spirit but that water baptism is necessary. I find that at odds with the general context of the NT in which Jesus seems to imply that rituals are a thing of the past (further supported by the apostles decree that circumcision is not required). All that I can find regarding the Christadelphian stance is the following statement (from the same website): baptism is necessary to salvation.
3) Lastly, can you define this position held by Christadelphians (from the same website): Christ’s nature was not immaculate?
Hi Abu, thanks for your questions.
This is an issue of political and spiritual allegiance. Christadelphians are disestablishmentarians, which means we believe in the separation of church and state. A Christian’s true leader is Christ, whose kingdom is not yet established.
The earliest Christians respected government and obeyed the law as far as it did not contradict with their beliefs, but they refused to serve in the military or hold government office. Tertullian defends this principle in De Corona, where he writes:
Historians confirm that Tertullian’s views reflected the earliest Christian position:
(F. P. G. Guizot, “Persecution Of The Christians In Gaul” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, ed. R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246).
(E. R. Peyser, The Book of Culture, Garden City Publishing Company, 1941, p.549).
(E. W. Barnes, The Rise of Christianity, Longman, 1947, p.333)
This all changed with the conversion of Constantine and the politicisation of Christianity under his rule.
Christadelphians trust that God rules in the kingdoms of men, and directs them according to His will. He does not require our involvement; instead He calls us to become citizens of “a heavenly country” (Hebrews 11:16). Christadelphians are not pacifists (ie. we are not opposed to war or self-defence) but we cannot and will not fight for human political powers, in pursuit of non-spiritual aims.
In Matthew 6:24 Christ said “no man can serve two masters”; he was referring to money, but the same principle applies to our relationship with the secular state. Click here to read a summary of the Biblical argument for disestablishmentarianism (it’s an Anabaptist site, but I agree with their reasoning).
This refers principally to our dealings with other Christians. It is taken from Paul’s instructions in I Corinthians 6:5-7:
Abu:
I agree that this principle has been frequently over-stated by Christians (and I include Christadelphians in that admonishment). Some read too much into Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 28:19 and Peter’s words in Acts 2:38, concluding that unless we are baptised, we cannot be saved. This is wrong.
Christadelphians believe that we can be saved without baptism, since God’s grace is sufficient (this point is unfortunately obscured by the over-statement you have quoted from a Christadelphian website). However, we do believe it is important to follow the divinely inspired instructions of Jesus and Peter, who advised that Christians should be baptised as an outward demonstration of their inward change.
Baptism itself does not save; the ritual is nothing more than that: a ritual. But it represents a deeper truth. Is a Christian saved simply because he has been baptised? No. Can an unbaptised Christian be saved? Absolutely. Is baptism essential for salvation? No. But it is a commandment of Christ and should be conducted on that principle alone, if for no other reason.
Abu:
It means we reject the idea that Christ’s nature was perfect and incapable of sin. He was made exactly like us in every way (Hebrews 2:17), subject to the same weaknesses and sufferings that we endure (Hebrews 4:15).
RE: John.20:28
“And Thomas said unto him, My Lord and my God.”
One of the few undisputed references in the NT where a believer gives the title of “God” to Jesus.
What is interesting is that the last time that Thomas is mentioned in the John’s gospel is in John 14 (the night of Jesus betrayal), where he asks a question that initiates a series of comments from Jesus that are thought provoking, and sum up much of what Jesus had said in other places.
John.14
V5 “Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?”
V7 Jesus said … “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him”
V9 …. “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”
Jesus was declaring that everything about him was of & from God; from his birth to his coming resurrection/glorification & future kingdom. His character, his words, his works, his atoning work, his resurrection were all as per his Father’s will, which he came to do.
He came in his Father’s name, not only as his ambassador, but fully as ‘the glory as of the only begotten of the Father’ .. ‘full of grace & truth’. That is, his character, words and works demonstrated that he was of God, in a truly unique way.
This is the realization that Thomas came to when seeing the risen & glorified Christ…. “He that hath seen me hath seen the father”…. It has nothing really to do with Thomas now believing that Jesus was God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.
Abu
Assallamu aleikum, friend. Dave’s website is indeed a very stimulating and refreshing one. I, for one, am very glad you’ve been guided to that site.
I also encourage you to visit http://www.kingdomready.org/blog. We have great discussions there! Biblical Unitarians from various backgrounds discuss vital matters there. It does not prescribe denominational association in any way.
Sincerely hope you’ll visit us soon! Give us a shout when you do!
In Christ,
Jaco
Kel,
Thanks for the comments on Thomas. I agree it is interesting to study his character and only John gives us this insight (11, 14 and 20). I think this shows that the normal assessment of “Thomas the doubter” leads to wrong conclusions. Thomas had a better understanding than most disciples that his salvation depended on Jesus (John 11). Philip is rebuked for his comments, but Thomas is not (John 14). Seeing Jesus risen from the dead gave it meaning.
Yes, I agree with your assessment of John 20.
Sorry but I don’t understand the argument that if something is ‘illogical’ (to humankind) it negates its truth? To take a biblical example, there was little ‘logic’ in terms of human understanding regarding the trials faced by Job. Yet those who did attempt to find the ‘logic’ in them (the suspected unconfessed sin on the part of Job) were criticised by God for doing just that and failing to recognise that God’s way/plans/ideas (use whatever term here you wish) are way beyond understanding.
God’s ‘ability’ to go way beyond anything we could ever imagine or make sense of it well documented by Paul when he wrote in Phillippians 4:7
‘And the peace of God, which TRANSCENDS ALL UNDERSTANDING, will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus’
If we can accept that His peace transcends all understanding can we not recognise that other attributes of God can too?
Living for His Glory (well trying my level best),
Rach
Rachel,
It’s not the ‘logic’ of the scriptural record or the revelation concerning Jesus that is the real issue, but the logic of the doctrine of the trinity which historically is clearly a human concoction of the 4th century and now widely accepted as orthodox & a belief necessary for salvation.
So orthodox was this doctrine, that Christians who objected to it were persecuted & at time executed in past ages. A doctrine enforced by the sword. Is it any wonder that it is the dominant belief.
I suggest all you well meaning folk out there read – “When Jesus Became God”: T’he Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome’ available from Amazon. You’ll be shocked when you realize how the orthodox doctrine came to be dominant.
Kel, thanks for your reply, however I beg to differ with you views. It does not appear to me that the argument you speak of regarding a lack of ‘logic’ in the doctrine of the trinity is that at all, rather an argument against biblical teaching. The trinity is based on biblical teaching as the writer for trinitarianism has duely defended in this debate.
Also, the actions in past times of those who have acknowledged the trinity does not nulify its truth. Mankind, sinful mankind (as we all are) carried out this persecution. How can the actions of mankind invalidate biblical teaching?
The argument is whether or not the Scripture teach that God is a trinity of persons or One person.
Does the evidence of Scripture support a trinity of persons or One person whom is God?
The overwheming evidence is that there is One person who is God, and YHVH is His name. YHVH is not the name of three persons but of ONE.
Rachel,
If the doctrine of the trinity was biblical or scriptural, then it would-should be clearly enunciated in the scriptures. It is not. The ‘logic’ of the scriptural revelation is not questioned by Dave, only the logic of the trinitarian creed.
NT language is quite clearly unitarian. Just read the introduction to many-most of Paul’s letters without the doctrinal formula; eg. Eph.1:1-3, Phil.1:1-3, Col.1:1-3. 1.Thes.1:1-2 etc.
In my experience, when people ague for the trinity, to some degree they have to assume the doctrine first, then pour the scriptures into the pre-set mould, as no clear NT statements exists to support it in any format that is even close to how the creed expresses it. Even here in this debate, it takes many weeks to get to the doctrine and bring all the ‘evidence’ together.
The Biblical Unitarian (Christadelphian) method is somewhat different. Plain scriptural statements are accepted as the core belief, and those that are more complex are examined as to immediate & historical context & intent to seek what the original authors meant.
For example;
John.8:58 is regularly used to support the doctrine of the trinity: “Before Abraham was, I am”. Yet how rarely is the immediate context of John.8 properly examined & explained. The “I am” (“I am he”) is used 4 other times in the context. John.8:12, 24, 27, 58 & John.9:5. “I am the light of the world”, as John.1:6-9 already states. Jesus is speaking of his ‘pre-eminence’ in the purpose & plan of God, not his ‘pre-existance’.
Rob has demonstrated well the difficulty of articulating the Trinity using standard English terms and concepts. We can’t say that the Father, son, and Holy Spirit are ‘persons’, because ‘persons’ in English are differentiated beings. We can’t say that the are ‘beings’, because the Trinity is not three beings We can’t call them ‘individuals’, because Rob says we are not to individuate them, and we can’t call them ‘entities’ because to Rob’s mind this is synomymous with ‘beings’, which they are not. So let’s call them ‘things’.
Further, God does not consist of the three ‘things’, nor do the three ‘things’ comprise God. The three ‘things’ are not ‘in’ God’, and God does not ‘encompass’ the three ‘things’. All of the ‘things’ can be called ‘God’, but God cannot be referred to as any one of the three ‘things’.
However, even the word ‘God’ is problematic, since Rob insists God is not a person, nor an individual, nor even a personal being. Instead God is a concept to which the three ‘things’ are related in a manner which cannot be articulated accurately in English.
So we have a ‘thing which is three things’, which is about as close as you can get to explaining the Trinity in non-theological terms. And that’s about as clear an explanation as anyone can give.